Datacenters,
The AI Race and American Politics
May 13, 2026 | Sundance |
There is an increased public
discussion about the race to build datacenters in the USA that are part of the
Artificial Intelligence (AI) race for superiority. There are multiple
facets within the discussion and some things to consider that might not be at
the forefront, yet.
Overall, there is a global race to
build the best AI system that is not dissimilar to the nuclear arms race.
Arguably the use of AI as a weapon is one possibility; while the second aspect
surrounds strategic economic power.
The USA is poised very favorably in
this AI race due to the advanced tech industry in America and recent national
security moves made by President Trump in the tech sector surrounding strategic
critical minerals and domestic chip production. However, no one is quite
sure where China is in their AI development and last year’s explosive
revelation around China’s “Deepseek” model shocked the U.S. tech industry
due to its advanced intelligence prowess.
With China and the USA both in this AI race, and the need for massive
investment in datacenters to do the processing needed for an artificial
intelligence brain of such significant capacity, there is a sense of urgency in
the tech industry that is surfacing around the country. Simultaneously,
with datacenters becoming more controversial, suddenly the geopolitical
intelligence operations enter the picture.
Currently, it is well accepted inside the tech industry that part of China’s
strategy against the USA in this AI race is to slow down American system
development. As a consequence, it is beginning to surface that Beijing
may be funding voices inside the USA to rally against the building of
datacenters. Essentially, China funding voices, real or artificially boosted
influence operations, to amplify domestic opposition to the datacenters.
Anytime the intelligence operations become part of a domestic issue that has
national security implications, things get opaque, cloudy and muddy pretty
quick. Is datacenter opposition organic – actual citizens and communities
pushing back against the development in their towns and/or cities or is the
opposition to the datacenters a form of foreign influence operation?
These questions become challenging to answer, and discernment becomes very
critical. The truth might even be a combination depending on the
localized opposition and/or regional importance. One thing is very clear,
building the world’s leading AI system is being rushed with an urgency similar
to atomic bomb development.
Here’s a great example of that type of question.
Today Gallup released a poll showing 72 percent of Americans are opposed to
building AI datacenters in their area. [POLLING
HERE]
[Note the date]
The topline sounds pretty straightforward right? 7
in 10 Americans oppose “the construction of a data center in their
area to support artificial intelligence technology.” That’s the
polled result. Indeed, this poll is being cited in numerous media articles now emphasizing opposition
to the datacenters.
However, put on your discernment cap and look at it closely. Notice
the date of the poll, “March 2-18, 2026.”
Why did Gallup wait two months to release the results of a poll on May 13, 2026?
Did the date of release today have something to do with the timing of
President Trump taking a list of key U.S. tech and finance leaders to Beijing
to confront China on exactly this AI issue? …. Or was it coincidental?
This is where you have to make up your own mind as to whether this Gallup
poll is an organic outcome, an organically timed release, on an issue that just
happens to be at the heart of the geopolitical negotiations currently underway
in Beijing between the USA and China. Or was there some kind of influence
operation around it?
I really don’t know the answer, but I’m well aware of how the influence game
is played once various intelligence operations identify something as critically
important. Who funded this Gallup poll? Why did they wait to
release it?
At the same time this battle to win the AI race is underway, there is a
psychological battle to influence the outcome. China plays this game very well
and they know how to draw on emotional influence operations; that’s why Beijing
spends so much time, money and human capital on North America.
Again, opposition to datacenter development can be entirely organic,
justified and righteous. Simultaneously, the information around
opposition to datacenters can be amplified, enhanced or become part of an
influence operation to win a battle. The truth can also be a mix of both,
but discovering the truth first begins with an admission of the possibility and
a decision to put emotion away and think logically about the controversy.
I’m no fan of Elon Musk, but he
said something in/around this issue that is very thoughtful and well
presented:
Musk:
“After World War 2, the US could have basically taken over the world and any
country. Like we got nukes, nobody else got nukes. We don’t even have to lose
soldiers. Which country do you want?”
One nation on earth held a weapon nobody else had.
Total dominance. Zero competition. No risk of retaliation.
Every empire in history that held that kind of advantage used it.
Rome. The Mongols. The British. The Ottomans.
They conquered until they collapsed.
America had a bigger advantage than all of them combined.
And it rebuilt the countries it just defeated.
Musk: “The United States actually helped rebuild countries. So it helped
rebuild Europe, it helped rebuild Japan. This is very unusual behavior, almost
unprecedented.”
Almost unprecedented?
It had never happened before. Not once in 5,000 years of recorded
history.
The Marshall Plan wasn’t foreign aid.
It was the most radical act of restraint any superpower ever committed.
America turned its enemies into allies. Turned rubble into economies.
Turned surrender into partnership.
Germany went from ashes to the economic engine of Europe in a
generation.
Japan went from unconditional surrender to the third largest economy on
earth.
Three years after the war, America was flying food into Berlin.
A city in the heart of the nation that just tried to destroy it.
That’s not policy.
That’s a civilization deciding what it is at the exact moment it has the
power to be anything.
You’re being told a story right now.
That America is the villain of history.
You hear it everywhere. Media. Universities. Social platforms.
Musk: “There’s always like, well America’s done bad things. Well of
course America’s done bad things, but one needs to look at the whole track
record.”
Every nation on earth has dark chapters. Every single one.
The difference is what a country does when nobody can stop it.
And when nobody could stop America, it fed its enemies and rebuilt their
cities.
Musk: “The history of China suggests that China is not acquisitive. Meaning
they’re not going to go out and invade a whole bunch of countries.”
Probably right.
China has historically built walls, not fleets.
But the real question isn’t about borders anymore.
We’re approaching a moment that mirrors 1945 in ways nobody has fully
processed yet.
AI is going to give a handful of people a power advantage that makes
nuclear monopoly look quaint.
If someone is going to hold that kind of power, who do you want it to
be?
The country that conquered when it could? Or the one that rebuilt when
it didn’t have to?
Every alliance. Every trade route. Every economy.
Billions lifted out of poverty.
All of it traces back to one act of restraint that had never been done
before.
And carries no guarantee of being repeated.
The most powerful thing America ever did wasn’t building the bomb.
It was what it didn’t do after.
{source}
Artificial Intelligence (AI) development, winning the AI race, has been
identified as the #1 national security issue of the next few years. The
winner in this digital war could turn off the lights, pollute the water, hack
elections, empty your bank account, control communication systems and generally
create nationwide chaos without ever firing a kinetic missile.
AI is both an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon guarding against AI
attacks.
Within the race and setting aside that technocrats will reap billions from
it regardless of outcome, the regional AI datacenters are likely to be a
political issue. Think about 2028. AI and the development of these
datacenters could be a very divisive topic.
How do you feel about it?
